Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joekels

Joekels

Joekels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND, WP:SIRS. Refs are PR and run of the mill business news. scope_creep^Talk 07:35, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and South Africa. Zeibgeist (talk) 08:34, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
• Keep - It is a well recognised South African tea brand with significant coverage online, with verifiable sources. If the content needs to tweaked because it reads too PROMO then that is a better solution than deletion of a C-Class article that has a lot of potential. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Van1985 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

This is an argument to avoid in an Afd discussion. scope_creep^Talk 23:46, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I've just shown you that all references you have show the company is non-notable. Not a single references satisfies WP:NCORP. There is a list of arguments in AFD to avoid at WP:ATA. You can look them up. The fact its a c-rated article with potential is neither here nor there. Whats count and only counts is coverage and it fails on that. scope_creep^Talk 08:56, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

• Comment Lets look at the first two blocks of references:

• Ref 1 That is paid for profile. Fails WP:SIRS.
• Ref 2 No byline. Paid for PR. Fails WP:SIRS.
• Ref 3 That is ceo's talking. Not independent and fails WP:ORGIND.
• Ref 4 Non-rs. Company profile.
• Ref 5 Its a company landing page. Fails WP:SIRS, WP:ORGIND.
• Ref 6 No byline. Ceo's talking. Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:SIRS. Not independent.
• Ref 7 Director talking in video. WP:SIRS, WP:ORGIND. Not independent.
• Ref 8 No byline. Its paid-for PR. Fails WP:SIRS. Not independent.
• Ref 9 More PR. CEO's again talking. Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:SIRS. Not independent.
• Ref 10 Ceo's talking again. Marketing. Same image. Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:SIRS. Not independent.
• Ref 11 Profile page. Non-rs. WP:SIRS
• Ref 12 Routine acquisition news. Fails WP:ORGTRIV. WP:SIRS
• Ref 13 Same again. Acquisition news. WP:SIRS.Fails WP:ORGTRIV
• Ref 14 Selling a stake. Fails WP:ORGTRIV. WP:SIRS
• Ref 15 Aquiring a stake. Fails WP:ORGTRIV. WP:SIRS

I'm not going to do anymore. Its all routine business news, marketing PR and press-release driven muck. No indication of significance. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 16:23, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: I greed the article is heavily reliant on company websites, press releases and CEO interviews. Independent, significant coverage is minimal or absent and most sources fail WP:SIRS. The company does not satisfy WP:NCORP or WP:ORGIND criteria. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 09:35, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:NCORP. Coverage is mostly PR, routine business announcements, and company-supplied material, offering no independent, in-depth sourcing to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND, or WP:SIRS. Bagwe Neza (talk) 10:16, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Tata Consumer Products#Brands and products per WP:ATD-R. We have some coverage in reliable sources related to the company's acquisition by Tata, including News24 (), The Economic Times (), and CNBC TV18 (). While there may not be enough here to pass WP:NCORP, this is clearly a recognizable brand in South Africa that our readers may search for. I think that redirecting is a preferable alternative to deletion in this case, since the brand is already mentioned on the Tata page. Pinging Thilio and Bagwe Neza in case they are willing to consider changing their !vote to redirect. Zeibgeist (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks @Zeibgeist. I’m not convinced, the cited sources are unbylined pieces which focused on Tata’s acquisitions, not to Joekels itself. Per WP:RSURPRISE, thus do not satisfy the case for a redirect. Bagwe Neza (talk) 06:11, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

  I have to disagree that this would be a WP:RSURPRISE considering Joekels is already mentioned at the target I've proposed. This is clearly a plausible search term so I do think redirecting would be more appropriate in this case. Zeibgeist (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 22:32, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: From what I can see the company has some substantial national coverage in South Africa - there is room for better citations to be added, but the company seems to be well recognized in South Africa, and something users would search for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southa79 (talk • contribs) 06:30, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

What coverage exactly? If you have evidence post it up here so it can examined instead of making empty statement. scope_creep^Talk 08:32, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Editor is a WP:SPA. scope_creep^Talk 08:32, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Well-recognized is fine, but we need coverage about the company. Oaktree b (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: Most coverage I find is in trade magazines. They were purchased by an Indian company , but that's about the limit RS that I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: Reduce the page to a stub for now by removing some of the content, and use sources like Ref 2,5,and 8 to talk about the company history. There are others there too that can be used. Van1985 (talk) 07:44, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Ref 2,5 and 8 are all non-rs as they fail WP:SIRS. One is a landing page. How will make the article notable. scope_creep^Talk 09:36, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

• Weak Keep I cannot find a lot of sources but per above it does seem to have notability in South Africa. Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:02, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Do you have sources to prove it. Please post them up, otherwise its just conjecture. scope_creep^Talk 19:36, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.